dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Jansson <johanjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Below is some discussion about PETSc standard installation and
packages. It seems that a petsc-dev package should include the PETSc
source, and thus that DOLFIN can assume the PETSc source is available
when building. This would solve both the pcimpl.h issue as well as the
issue of extracting PETSc compiler flags.

  Johan

----- Forwarded message from Matthew Knepley <knepley@xxxxxxxxxxx> -----

X-Original-To: johanjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Medic-Info: 2d27.42caa824.0 wCApK6Z7Wvkurayi 
To: Johan Jansson <johanjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: petsc-maint@xxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: petsc-maint@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PETSC #13286] Make pcimpl.h a public API
From: Matthew Knepley <knepley@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 10:32:50 -0500
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on anubis.medic.chalmers.se
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at chalmers.se
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=-100 required=5 tests=
X-Spam-Level: 

Johan Jansson <johanjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:20:35AM -0500, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>> 
>> Not sure why you want this. The organization of PC mirrors that of
>> every other package in PETSc. The public headers in /include define
>> the interface that users need to use the libraries and nothing
>> else. The implementation headers define the underlying structure of
>> these objects. This is a very common component programming
>> structure. The PETSc build system will allow this include using
>> <src/ksp/pc/pcimpl.h>. To me this makes sense since you are doing
>> something which depends on PETSc internals rather than just the
>> interface, but I am willing to listen to the other side.
>
> Including <src/ksp/pc/pcimpl.h> is a good solution, but is that
> accessible from a standard PETSc installation? Can DOLFIN assume that
> the /src structure will be present?

  I assume this is a Debian-esque package question. I would liken building
a package implementation to operations which require a -devel package. So
I would say that requiring the source is fine. We always install this way
since debugging is impossible without the source, however I do not use
any packing system for PETSc currently, so I do not know what they do.

    Thanks,

        Matt
-- 
"Failure has a thousand explanations. Success doesn't need one" -- Sir Alec Guiness

----- End forwarded message -----